Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Overview
In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are (or may become) parties to claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings involving property, personal injury, intellectual property, privacy, tax, labor and employment, competition, commercial disputes, consumer protection and other claims, as well as stockholder derivative actions, class action lawsuits and other matters. Such claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings could result in fines, civil or criminal penalties, or other adverse consequences. The amounts that may be recovered in such matters may be subject to insurance coverage. Although the results of legal proceedings
25
Table of Contents
and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries is currently a party to any legal proceedings the outcome of which, we believe, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties.
Rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission require the description of material pending legal proceedings (other than ordinary, routine litigation incident to the registrant’s business) and advise that proceedings ordinarily need not be described if they primarily involve damages claims for amounts (exclusive of interest and costs) not exceeding 10% of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In the judgment of Company management, none of the pending litigation matters which we are defending, including those described below, involves or is likely to involve amounts of that magnitude. The matters described below involve issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether they may be material to our financial position or operations based upon the standard set forth in the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Service Professional Class Action Litigation against HomeAdvisor
In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al. , No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals (“SPs”) who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint sought certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserted claims including fraud, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment and sought injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.
In July 2018, the plaintiffs’ counsel filed a separate putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al. , No. 1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine SPs proposed as new plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, the Company and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in a proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation .
In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for leave to file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to HomeAdvisor, the Company and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) and two unrelated entities. In October and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In May 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; the defendants opposed the motion. On January 10, 2024, the court entered an order largely denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court certified certain classes seeking only injunctive relief based upon alleged misappropriation of SPs’ intellectual property, the court declined to certify any of the proposed classes challenging lead quality and seeking monetary relief. On January 24, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s partial denial of class certification; on February 14, 2024, the defendants opposed the motion, which remains pending. On February 26, 2024, the parties filed motions for summary judgement on the remaining class claim regarding misappropriation of SPs’ intellectual property.
The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
PART II